More on the gay-marriage issue, this time from my former “home town” paper:
The Salt Lake Tribune — Utah same-sex couple fly to S.F. to tie the knot
“This is an actual marriage license. It looks the same as any other marriage license,” Jane Marquardt said. “This may confer more benefits, and if not, since the Utah Legislature seems bound and determined to pass more laws that we will never recognize same-sex marriage here, at least it makes a statement.”
This is the basis of the discussion David and I have been having the last week or so – he thinks that there’s no point in gay couples getting married in San Francisco if it’s just going to be annulled or rescinded later by the State of California. I think it’s the symbolism of it – and that sometimes a powerful symbol has its own reality.
Another reason I love not living in Utah anymore, and have mixed feelings about return visits: the political climate and the fact that it’s a thinly veiled theocracy:
The Utah Legislature is moving on two fronts to block same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized here: a bill strengthening the state’s ban on such unions that has passed both houses, and a proposed constitutional amendment.
The state’s conservative political climate, and a sense the license may end up being merely symbolic, is keeping some Utah gay couples from making a trek to San Francisco”
It’s explained in more detail in this companion article.
If Gov. Olene Walker approves, the “Marriage Recognition Policy” will bar state agencies from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states or giving same-sex couples the legal rights of inheritance, medical power of attorney and child custody assumed in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Two times before, in 1977 and in 1996, legislators — overwhelmingly Republican members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — have refused to recognize same-sex marriage.
And yes, the few yet sturdy Democrats in the Utah Legislature are trying to force the Republicans to swallow a bitter pill if the pass the marriage bill – they want the wording to say that “marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman,” which is a hearty smack at the polygamists and makes the more mainstream LDS politicians squirm with embarassment -they’d like to ignore the polygamy issue completely.
I like what Trib columnist Holly Mullen has to say on it:
Utah can take its petty little stand.
I think I’d better send supportive emails to both Ms. Biskupski and Trib columnist Ms. Mullen – it takes guts to take a stand against the way things are in Utah, and I’m sure they’re going to get hammered with “If you don’t like it you can just leave” emails today.
I’m not sure why this issue is such a big deal to me personally, except that when I think of gay people marrying, I see the faces of gay friends I’ve known over the years and wonder how they’re doing and whether they’re going to San Francscisco and…
::humming mode:: “…be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.”
And finally, I liked this quote from the lone openly gay Utah legislator:
Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Jackie Biskupski, the only openly gay Utah legislator, was crestfallen after the debate. Biskupski said lawmakers are making gays and lesbians “second-class” citizens.
“I’m not a pedophile. I’m not a pervert. I’m human, created by God, just like all of you, with a loving, giving heart. I’m not the only lesbian you know,” she said during the debate. “Senate Bill 24 is more about politics than people.”
New favorite quote, that.
I sent my complaints to the N. Association and SlTrib.
Holly has feeling, and is a good writer. Her articles belong in the oppinion section, mostly oppinion and one sided. Fact is anarchy is now a regular thing in the US and Utah will take a strong stand on homosexuality.
Intrestingly enough, I understand atheiests that are ok with homosexuality, but the senetor that hinted her acknolagment in God, and assumed acknolagment of the bible. It is complete revolt to beleive the bible and that homosexuality is ok. One very simple example is: God commanded to replentish the earth, one of the opening chapters of the bible. It would be mear mocking to suggest that god created gays, when they clearly cannot reproduce on their own. The list is endless. Love and respect for the sinner, not for the sin
Very interesting. Thank you for your comments.
Just to keep an even keel, I’ll be sending my compliments to Holly Mullen, in acknowledgement of the opinion column she wrote. It’s certainly not the majority opinion in her market, is it? I’m glad she is there to say it, though.
As a Christian, I have to say that I am ok with homosexuality too, so I’m apparently in agreement with many atheists. It’s all good.
Genesis, the first chapter of the Bible, was never a favorite of mine once it got past the exciting and poetic “let there be light” part. Although I do like the part about all the animals being created, too. I like animals.
IMO, we’re done replenishing the Earth – in fact, we’re about to replenish ourselves out of a perfectly good planet in a few decades. And we’re ruining God’s beautiful creation while we’re at it. Now, that’s not right.
So I opted out of the “replenish” bargain, because with 6+ billion people, I figure it was fulfilled long ago.
Since I will not do anything to replenish the Earth either, I wonder if this also means that God did not create me? And if not, who did? Because only God, the Creator, can create.
…
And if God did create gays for reasons of God’s own… I wonder what’s on God’s mind?
Must ponder this over a cup of coffee.
Playfully yours,
Ginny
Where do these people come from? Obviously not past the 6th grade spelling challenge. The stuff in the Trib is very one-sided, as it always has been but every now and again you get a journalist who has an open mind. This whole gay marriage thing is really a big laugh. They worry about a guy with a guy but not an old fart with 15 young women bearing their children every year. Go figure!!!!
Apparently the Trib may be in danger of getting a lot more one-sided, which was why I was so pleasantly surprised to find the articles I quoted and linked in the post. I’m keeping an eye on that story for a while to see what happens.
Yep, it’s a puzzlement – I’m a product of the Utah education system, and in spite of its having the lowest per-pupil funding in the Nation, I came out of it able to read, write, spell, and construct a sentence properly.
Although… considering that Mom taught me to read before kindergarten and corrected my grammar consistently, only a few of my teachers really had that much to do with it.
One of them that DID make a difference for me was my high school journalism teacher, Gary Johnston. Mr. Johnston was a former Rhodes scholar and taught me how to write a snappy first paragraph, and I still use the old-school “who, what, where, why, when” rules when I’m setting up a news story quote in the blog.
He was also a flamboyant dresser who favored lavender ascots, gold scarf pins, and peach-colored leisure suits, and in fact was about as campy as Dame Edna without the rhinestones and sequins. He was a scholar and a gentleman, and I wonder whatever happened to him?
I would love to know what he thinks of the current gay marriage brouhaha, and the coverage in the Utah press.
It’s always amusing to see Deseret News readers complaining that the Trib is biased. The Deseret News and the Mooney-owned Washington Times are the most biased “mainstream” paper I’ve ever read. Read the Seattle PI, the Christian Science Monitorm the Oregonian, the LA or NY Times, The Washington Post or the Cleveland Plain Dealer and you’ll see a big difference.
Thank goodness for the Internet, or I wouldn’t be able to read what’s stirring ’em up back “home” in Utah. On the other hand, the issues would be much more remote and a lot less irritating (although I’d hear about it eventually via gripes from family members).
I always preferred the Seattle Times to the P-I when I lived in Seattle – for a completely stupid reason. As I recall, the Times had “Calvin and Hobbes” and the P-I didn’t.